Secularism

As President Ahmet Necdet Sezer emphasized several times, this is the mother of all principles for the Turkish State. Good. But the “secularism” he refers to is quite different from what you might be used to. Unlike the Anglo-Saxon tradition, which defines secularism as the separation of church and state, Turkey's elite see secularism (laicism) as the total domination of the state over religion.

In practical terms, this is translated into the unwritten rule that the state and important positions in the society should be controlled by people who have a secular worldview and lifestyle. If people with a religious worldview and lifestyle become influential in these strongholds — regardless of whether they agree to play by democratic rules — then “secularism” is viewed as under threat. It is considered safe only when religious people “know their place” and remain in their cultural ghettos. (Whether the secular elite really fear from the Green Peril, or rather use it in order to preserve their privileges, is a question worth exploring.)

Democracy

Once secularism is defined as such, democracy becomes a lethal threat, because the great majority of the Turkish society is religious and they have no problem voting for observant politicians. Actually since 1950, the year that Turkish society was given the right to vote freely and choose between alternative parties, it almost always opted for center right parties, which don't buy into the authoritarian secularism of the state establishment.

In 2002 voters even opted for a conservative party, the AKP, most of whose leaders are unabashedly religious. Since then the AKP has proved to be more liberal and progressive than some of its secular rivals, such as the CHP, but the very fact that its leaders — and their wives — maintain a visible Islamic identity is enough for it to be defined as “backward” and, of course, a threat to “secularism.”

The Republic

Now, if democracy is a lethal threat to Turkey's self-styled secularism, what needs to be done? The obvious answer is to hinder democracy. In the past, this was done four times via military interventions. But these were just tips of the iceberg; hampering democracy is a permanent process carried out by legal mechanisms which ensure that the secularist bureaucracy, not elected governments, has the final word on important matters. In other words, the Turkish people can't fully rule themselves; they have to share their sovereignty with unelected bureaucrats — and, of course, their allies in society. “Rule by the people” is carefully balanced with “rule by the elites.”

In political science jargon, the latter would be called an oligarchy. But since that's too nasty a term, the secular elite invented a euphemism for it: the Republic. The term republic is not supposed to imply oligarchy, to be sure, but it has become so in Turkey in the past few decades. CHP's leader Deniz Baykal openly said, “We won't allow them to sacrifice the Republic to democracy.” If he had preferred the blunt way, he could have said, “We will not let the people rule themselves.”

Independence

When I was in primary school, I routinely confused the terms “independence” and “freedom.” They sounded like the same thing to me, because we were taught that the only threat to our freedom was foreign powers that tried to colonize our country in the early 20's and would try to do so again whenever we show weakness. As long as we remained independent, we would be free.

But of course independence alone does not bring freedom. (Just at look at North Korea: it is fully independent, but totally unfree.) Indeed, sometimes “independence” can be the pretext for authoritarian regimes to suppress their own people.

With that in mind, let's look at Turkey. In recent years, an interesting discourse has evolved here. The European Union asks Turkish authorities to give more freedom to its citizens. More freedom of ideas, religion, economy and politics… The government has often done its best to realize such liberal reforms, but the guardians of the “the Republic” abhor and stand against this “foreign interference” with our “internal affairs.” They prefer, rather, to keep Turkey fully detached from the free world and under the guidance of its oligarchy. That's what they mean when they crusade for “independence.”

These are just four of the many fancy terms one should understand in order to grasp the political realities of Turkey. More will be explained in my next column.